11–20 of 88 posts
~940px is close to the safest assumption you can make of the minimum horizontal resolution for an average user.
Scrollbar takes only about 20 pixels, if we are taking about minimum height of 1024px, that means you can go up to 990px, 960px or so.
White space is a fundamental of good design.
Light gradients and thin grey lines provide subtle distinctions between content areas without overpowering the content.
A strong, obvious 'Call to Action' button in a vibrant colour encourages click through action.
Sans serif fonts work better than serifs in websites because of the inherent limitations with rendering fine details using pixels (they often also communicate 'modern').
Moving secondary links to the footer is simply good UX. They're available but out of the way.
940px (I'd say 970 actually) is the current sweet spot if you want to target the majority of people's screen resolution to provide a good experience.
(I agree with HNer... the examples you provide all look very different, but are just fairly well designed)
What you're describing is good design and UX. White space is a fundamental of good design. Light gradients and thin grey lines provide subtle distinctions between content areas without overpowering the content. A strong, obvious 'Call to Action' button in a vibrant colour encourages click through action. Sans serif fonts work better than serifs in websites because of the inherent limitations with rendering fine detai…
The folks who designed those old amber IBM terminals (that I still use at work) would have argued that:
- Black background is easy on the eyes.
- The flashing cursor draws your focus.
- The amazing bold font technology breaks up the page very nicely.
So it would appear that "good design" is just a function of the technology available.
What you're describing is good design and UX. White space is a fundamental of good design. Light gradients and thin grey lines provide subtle distinctions between content areas without overpowering the content. A strong, obvious 'Call to Action' button in a vibrant colour encourages click through action. Sans serif fonts work better than serifs in websites because of the inherent limitations with rendering fine detai…
But the definition of good UI is arbitrary. The folks who designed those old amber IBM terminals (that I still use at work) would have argued that: - Black background is easy on the eyes. - The flashing cursor draws your focus. - The amazing bold font technology breaks up the page very nicely. So it would appear that "good design" is just a function of the technology available.
It's not arbitrary however.
Here are some essentially inviolate principles of good design: http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gest...
What you're describing is good design and UX. White space is a fundamental of good design. Light gradients and thin grey lines provide subtle distinctions between content areas without overpowering the content. A strong, obvious 'Call to Action' button in a vibrant colour encourages click through action. Sans serif fonts work better than serifs in websites because of the inherent limitations with rendering fine detai…
But the definition of good UI is arbitrary. The folks who designed those old amber IBM terminals (that I still use at work) would have argued that: - Black background is easy on the eyes. - The flashing cursor draws your focus. - The amazing bold font technology breaks up the page very nicely. So it would appear that "good design" is just a function of the technology available.
That somewhat explains the trends you see in design, because when we employ a convergent design standard, it's more readily accessible in a single visit than a design that breaks away from current conventions.
It's also empirically the case that the convergent design standards represent the 'fittest'.
And I would argue that evolutionary speaking they represent 'good design' (that's my definition anyway).
Compare loopt to, say, Flightcaster. Loopt is clean, good-looking and entirely uninformative. What does Loopt do? Why should you be eager to 'partner with' them? Flightcaster is busy, typographically sinful and yet answers the sort of questions you might have if you've never heard of Flightcaster. And you can try it right there and then.
They don't have the luxury to be able to jump into it and spread all they have over the first page, as websites with known concepts do (news sites, video sites, forums, wikis).
So the design might look generic, but that's because as often in design, it solves a specific purpose in a way that doesnt allow too many variations. All knifes look the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the definition of good UI is arbitrary. The folks who designed those old amber IBM terminals (that I still use at work) would have argued that: - Black background is easy on the eyes. - The flashing cursor draws your focus. - The amazing bold font technology breaks up the page very nicely. So it would appear that "good design" is just a function of the technology available.
Good design is about form following function, and is very dependent on the technology available, you're right. It's not arbitrary however. Here are some essentially inviolate principles of good design: http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gest...